The Brief Facts That Led To The Filing Of The Above Appealare As Under v. Income Tax Officer (254 Itr772), Allowed The Appeals. Hence, The Present Appeals

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARANANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA The Commissioner of Income TaxAppellant inChennai...all appeals The Vellore Electric Corporation Ltd.No.338, Ambigammal StreetRespondent inAlwarpet, Chennai 600 018... all appeals----- Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras 'B' Bench dated 15.3.2005 made in ITA Nos.246, 247, 248 and249/Mds/2002 for the assessment years 1983-84 to 1986-87respectively in ITA NOS. tr 554 to 557/01-02A III order dated28.12.2001 for be assessment year 1983-84 to 1986-87 on the fileof the Commissioner income Tax (Appeals) III Chennai 34 against inPAN/GIR NO. 11-T dated on 30.03.2001 assessment year 198-84, 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-97 respectively on the file of the DeputyCommissioenr of Income Tax City Circle III (1) Chennai----- The above tax case appeals are directed against the commonorder of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 15.3.2005 made inITA Nos.246, 247, 248 and 249/Mds/2002 for the assessment years1983-84 to 1986-87 respectively, raising the following substantialquestions of law. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case,the Tribunal was right in holding that the reopening of the assessments is null and void as per theprovisions of Section 150 of the IT Act? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case,the Tribunal was right in applying the ratio of decisionof the Apex Court in 254 ITR 772 and hold that reopeningof the assessment is barred by limitation and null andvoid as per the provisions of Section 150 of the IT Act? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the compensation and interest amounts received bythe assessee as per the apex court decision dated 6.1.1995 can be assessed to tax in the year of receipt? 2. The brief facts that led to the filing of the above appealare as under. The assessee was in the business of distribution ofelectricity. The Government of Tamil Nadu took over the assesseecompany by order 7.1.1974. With respect to the grant ofcompensation and its quantum, the Supreme Court by order dated6.1.1995 fixed Rs.51,45,536/- as compensation and Rs.59,14,553/-as interest, totalling to Rs.1,10,60,089/-. The AssessingOfficer, after issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act andgiving opportunity to the assessee, assessed the interest accruedin every year on compensation, invoking Section 150 of the Act andcompleted the reassessment proceedings. Against the same, theassessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), who confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred appeals before theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal following the decisionof the Apex Court in K.S.SHARMA v. INCOME TAX OFFICER (254 ITR772), allowed the appeals. Hence, the present appeals. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenuefairly concedes that the issues raised in the above appeals arecovered by the decision of this Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX v. VELLORE ELECTRIC CORPORATION LTD. (287 ITR 50). 4. In COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. VELLORE ELECTRICCORPORATION LTD. (287 ITR 50), this Court has held as follows:"... The Tribunal while discussing the issue has reliedon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case ofK.M.SHARMAVS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER reported in (2002) 254ITR 772 and very elaborately extracted the order of theSupreme Court. In the said case, the three judges Bench 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenuefairly concedes that the issues raised in the above appeals arecovered by the decision of this Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX v. VELLORE ELECTRIC CORPORATION LTD. (287 ITR 50). 4. In COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. VELLORE ELECTRICCORPORATION LTD. (287 ITR 50), this Court has held as follows:"... The Tribunal while discussing the issue has reliedon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case ofK.M.SHARMAVS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER reported in (2002) 254ITR 772 and very elaborately extracted the order of theSupreme Court. In the said case, the three judges Bench of the Supreme Court has categorically held that theplain language of Sub-section (2) of Section 150 clearlyrestricts the application of sub-section (1) to enablethe authorities to reopen the assessments which have notalready become final on the expiry of the period oflimitation prescribed under Section 149. Sub-section(2), in placing an embargo on reopening of assessments,which have attained finality on the expiry of the periodof limitation prescribed under Section 149, refers tothe whole of sub-section 1, intending thereby toinsulate all assessments which have become final and mayhave been found liable for re-assessment or re-computation on the basis of either orders in proceedingsunder the Income-tax Act or orders of Courts passedunder any other law. The Supreme Court further held thatthe provisions of Section 150(1) as amended with effectfrom April 1, 1989, did not enable the authorities toreopen assessments, which had become final due to thebar of limitation prior to April 1,1989, and thisposition was equally applicable to re-assessmentsproposed on the basis of orders passed under the Income-tax Act or under any other law. The proceedings whichhad attained finality under existing law due to bar oflimitation cannot be held to be reopened for revivalunless the amended provision is clearly givenretrospective operation so as to allow upsetting ofproceedings which had already concluded and attainedfinality.4. The above judgment will squarely answer theissue against the revenue and as such we are of the viewthat the order of the Tribunal, which followed thedecision of the Supreme Court, requires no interferenceand accordingly the appeals stand dismissed." 4. In view of the above settled proposition, we do not findany substantial question of law that arises for our consideration.Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. Consequently,M.P.Nos.1 of 2007 are dismissed.kpl Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ To 1. The Assistant RegistrarIncome Tax Appellate (SMC)Tribunal, Madras D BenchChennai Sub Asst.Registrar 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) IIIChennai 34 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income TaxCity Circle III (1) Chenai 4. The Commissioner of Income TaxChennai + one cc to Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, Advocate sr no. 35685 asm(co)nm(29.06.07) T.C.(A) Nos.680 to 683 of 2007.